Probably pseudo-science but this is just another unqualified attempt to make sense of it all and question the established or traditional. I'm no creationist in case anybody is wondering. Excuse my ignorance if this thread sounds stupid, I've done worse. It lacks the proper terminology so please bear with me and I'll do my best to be understood.

If the first life forms were simple bacteria and because bacteria still thrives today then are all organisms just a branch from the main bacterial evolutionary path?

As far as I know, cells are not composed of bacteria. Both single and uni-cellular organisms house certain bacteria, friendly, unfriendly or neutral. I'd like to take a look at that.

It appears as if organisms are merely invaders in a bacterial world. Or do they serve to benefit bacteria? Bacteria has enjoyed tremendous success since their conception. If evolutionary change is for the better then why did at least one bacteria require the cell adaptation? To satisfy a demand to shelter certain forms of bacteria?

Despite what we throw at it, bacteria marches on, constantly upgrading to survive. I mean you can't get any better than that. The evolution of organisms doesn't seem to fit the same pattern bacteria has laid down for eons. Organisms are fragile at best but are a haven for friendly or neutral bacteria and usually a victim of bad bacteria.

I don't want to devalue life but it seems that the evolution of organisms might basically be the development of housing for privileged bacteria.

All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume

You must remember that the bacteria that are alive today are also descendants of the proteobacterial ancestor.

You should look up the endosymbioniant theory ... organelles such as the chloroplast, mitochondria, and peroxisome, are actually bacteria that were engulfed by an ancestral archea a few billion years ago.

Also, lots of plants and fungi naturally release antibiotics, which kill bacteria... and there is the constant biowarfare armsrace going on between bacteria! They are almost all out to kill each other!

That is all I can think to say about that.

It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov

You must remember that the bacteria that are alive today are also descendants of the proteobacterial ancestor.

That's what I mean. Such a strong line yet they branched off. Do plants and animals owe their existence to this change? If evolution is an adaptive change why did more complex creatures become necessary when it's obvious bacteria is so successful?

organelles such as the chloroplast, mitochondria, and peroxisome, are actually bacteria that were engulfed by an ancestral archea a few billion years ago.

For what reason, why the adaptations? I figure if bacteria adapted then resulting cells and complex creatures are for the bacteria's benefit. For all I know, bacteria are farmers and we are the produce.

Also, lots of plants and fungi naturally release antibiotics, which kill bacteria... and there is the constant biowarfare armsrace going on between bacteria! They are almost all out to kill each other!

True. If plants are the result of an adaptive change by bacteria eons ago then it is probably for the benefit of the bacteria that made the adaptation. Organisms may only exist to keep certain bacteria alive. Food, shelter, protection & friendly environment all provided by living organisms.

It's tough to imagine we are reduced to bacterial fodder. Alive or dead we provide sustenance. This is something I thought about a few years ago. I'm just trying to figure out why bacteria would need to evolve.

All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume

zinjanthropos:
I have always wondered about the fact that we share 35% of our genome with the daffodil, how far back do our common ancestors go!?

Also the idea that our only purpose is to house bacteria isnt the first time I've heard suc an argument, there are other similar arguments such as:

(i) there is a symbiosis between us and our mitochondria, mitochondria are not actually belonging to any organism but are their own organisms as they reproduce by themselves and have very different DNA to almost any other organism.

(ii) the only reason for out (or any life forms) existence is to assist in the propagation of DNA, in ohter words we are just vessels for the maintainance and spreading of a chemical!

The thing about these theories is that they dont actually produce any predictions/conclusions and they dont really give any insight into anything!
They are justdifferent ways of looking at life and indeed as you argued, one way of looking at us is as containers for the survival of bacteria

If evolution is an adaptive change why did more complex creatures become necessary when it's obvious bacteria is so successful?

That's the same as saying 'Apes are still around, they seem to be still standing( ), so what the heck are we doing here?'. It's the entire discussion about 'what's the meaning of life' or 'why evolution'. Well why DID more complex creatures become necassary? Because they adapted to sustain in another environment. Why did they need another environment? Maybe because they could live 'better lives', a place with more food etc. I mean, ok, bacteria are still around and they're not as complex as Homo Sapiens, but (though I don't know this for sure) they don't seem to have very fulfilling lives. If you look at the evolution between apes and men, appearently there had to be advantage of walking upright, and so some of the species evolved, some are still the same. Same for bacteria I suppose, some evolved, some decided to stick it out and see what happens...

For what reason, why the adaptations? I figure if bacteria adapted then resulting cells and complex creatures are for the bacteria's benefit. For all I know, bacteria are farmers and we are the produce.

It's true that the bacteria adapted, but it was for the benefit of the bacteria that actually did adapt, the ones that had the mutation (or other adaptation) giving them that extra edge, an advantage over the rest, making them more 'fit' (in terms of Darwin) and making them more able to reproduce. The ones that didn't adapt, remained bacteria, got left behind, but like everything in this world, their is a balance between lifeforms. They can benefit from us, we could benefit from them, they could kill us, we could kill them. Same for every species I reckon.

And to Robbie, I don't really think you can describe mitochondria as 'their own organism'. Granted, they have their own DNA, but they are still dependent on the nucleus of the cell for all the necessary proteins to complete transcription and translation. They don't have DNA that code for those proteins, so I don't reckon you can consider mitochandria as some kind of symbiont of the cell, if you will.